Commission vs City of Mounds View Ramsey Court

Home Browse Search

Yager v. Thompson, 352 N.W.2d 71, 75 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). Plaintiff must show irreparable harm as distinguished from merely speculative damages based on an apprehension of harm. Thomas v. Ramberg, 240 Minn. 1, 60 N.W.2d 18, 21 (Minn. 1953). In this case the cost of implementing such a major change without properly considering its scope and the impact of the many issues can be clearly seen by review of the nearly one year spent on the same task by the Charter Commission of the City of Northfield Minnesota and by the minutes of those meetings. And not rushing such a change clearly does not do any significant harm since it can be properly reviewed and amendments proposed and still submitted to the voters at a later time. 3. The likelihood of success on the merits at trial belongs to Plaintiff. The affidavits submitted by Plaintiff clearly demonstrate that proper procedure was not followed, that the City did not put forth the proposed amendments to Mounds View's Charter in accordance with Minn. Stat. Section 410.12, Subd. 5. Which would have required a ninety day extension be granted for the Charter Commission to review and propose amendments. The City will not be harmed if directed to follow the law. The process may ultimately result in the proposed amendments being adopted, but simply after review and discussion, and most importantly, after input by Mounds View residents. Because the Court will determine that the City proceeded improperly and not in accordance with law, Plaintiffs will be successful. 4. Public interest balances in favor of Plaintiff. "The court's authority to interfere in the management of municipal affairs is, and should be, limited and sparingly invoked." White Bear Docking & Storage, Inc. v. City of White Bear lake, 324 N.W.2d 174, 175 (Minn. 1982). However, taxpayers to have "sufficient interest to enjoin illegal expenditures of...municipal funds." McKee v. Likins, Memorandum Page 4 of 6